Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cruentus" data-source="post: 9042902" data-attributes="member: 7034645">Sure, you don't see it.&nbsp; I do.&nbsp; Different tables and different experiences and all that.&nbsp; The players I have played with for over 40 years are min/maxers, and all about the power.&nbsp; If they can multiclass to boost slots to, say, Smite, or stack up Ability Score bonuses for whatever, or to do wonky combos with familiars, darkness, devilsight while combining that with a rogue's sneak attack, etc., its pure gamism (in my opinion, your experience may vary, etc.).Like in your example about your getting lost in the jungle.&nbsp; So, the only way the game could progress is for your character to all of a sudden be able to become a ranger, complete with &quot;favored terrain: jungle&quot; (how convenient!).&nbsp; I mean, great that that worked for your table, but that is jarring, and shouldn't be necessary.&nbsp; Why are hired guides so bad at &quot;guiding&quot;?&nbsp; Is everything left to the whims of the dice rolls vs ability checks?&nbsp; Why can't the environment, or the guides, actually do what they're supposed to be able to do without constantly getting lost?&nbsp; I'd be annoyed at &quot;having&quot; to dip to make the campaign actually work.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I'm glad you made lemonade.&nbsp; I get the off flavor stuff.&nbsp; But it should be flavor.&nbsp; I'm perfectly happy with feats, backgrounds, and such offering some ability, but not necessitating MC'ing.&nbsp; In the game I DM'd, session zero was about a FR campaign set in 900 DR, in the Moonshaes, with a very dark ages/celtic/mystery/low magic type setting, with less murderhobo, more RP, total sandbox, etc.&nbsp; All agreed upon by the players, and then two of the four go about multiclassing into some kind of spellcaster, except for the arcane archer, and fighter.&nbsp; So we had Sorcerer into Twilight Cleric, Rogue into Warlock for familiar stuff, etc.&nbsp; Completely against theme, completely at odds with session zero agreement, etc.&nbsp; All for the perceived ability to want to &quot;win&quot; DND by a couple of players at the table.&nbsp; I also realize that can happen in any version of DnD as well.&nbsp; But 5e makes is easier, again, in my experience.&nbsp; And the single class advantage is only really a thing when you're playing up into the teens and close to 20th level, where the lost levels to MC might matter.&nbsp; Most games I've been in or run cap out after years around level 12ish or less.&nbsp; So the MC &quot;penalty&quot; isn't really one at all considering the additional benefits you can just bake in.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cruentus, post: 9042902, member: 7034645"] Sure, you don't see it. I do. Different tables and different experiences and all that. The players I have played with for over 40 years are min/maxers, and all about the power. If they can multiclass to boost slots to, say, Smite, or stack up Ability Score bonuses for whatever, or to do wonky combos with familiars, darkness, devilsight while combining that with a rogue's sneak attack, etc., its pure gamism (in my opinion, your experience may vary, etc.). Like in your example about your getting lost in the jungle. So, the only way the game could progress is for your character to all of a sudden be able to become a ranger, complete with "favored terrain: jungle" (how convenient!). I mean, great that that worked for your table, but that is jarring, and shouldn't be necessary. Why are hired guides so bad at "guiding"? Is everything left to the whims of the dice rolls vs ability checks? Why can't the environment, or the guides, actually do what they're supposed to be able to do without constantly getting lost? I'd be annoyed at "having" to dip to make the campaign actually work. But I'm glad you made lemonade. I get the off flavor stuff. But it should be flavor. I'm perfectly happy with feats, backgrounds, and such offering some ability, but not necessitating MC'ing. In the game I DM'd, session zero was about a FR campaign set in 900 DR, in the Moonshaes, with a very dark ages/celtic/mystery/low magic type setting, with less murderhobo, more RP, total sandbox, etc. All agreed upon by the players, and then two of the four go about multiclassing into some kind of spellcaster, except for the arcane archer, and fighter. So we had Sorcerer into Twilight Cleric, Rogue into Warlock for familiar stuff, etc. Completely against theme, completely at odds with session zero agreement, etc. All for the perceived ability to want to "win" DND by a couple of players at the table. I also realize that can happen in any version of DnD as well. But 5e makes is easier, again, in my experience. And the single class advantage is only really a thing when you're playing up into the teens and close to 20th level, where the lost levels to MC might matter. Most games I've been in or run cap out after years around level 12ish or less. So the MC "penalty" isn't really one at all considering the additional benefits you can just bake in. [/QUOTE]

Verification